"It raises privacy concerns, it raises unreasonable conditions of bail and concerns with restriction of liberty," she said. "A municipality does not have the power to do that, and they are well outside of the realm of what is within their jurisdiction on this one."


This isn't first time offenders FFS it's prolific criminals who are terrorizing a community. But what's more concerning is this twit actually claims it's a restriction of liberty. Well if our judicial system did it's job these assholes wouldn't have to worry about an ankle bracelet denying them liberty it would be the prison system doing that for them.

Sadly this endeavor will end up in the SCoC and we all know how it'll turn out. Because, in Canada the fact is that protecting the public from proflific criminals has been replaced with criminals rights.

"It raises privacy concerns, it raises unreasonable conditions of bail and concerns with restriction of liberty," she said. "A municipality does not have the power to do that, and they are well outside of the realm of what is within their jurisdiction on this one."


This isn't first time offenders FFS it's prolific criminals who are terrorizing a community. But what's more concerning is this twit actually claims it's a restriction of liberty. Well if our judicial system did it's job these assholes wouldn't have to worry about an ankle bracelet denying them liberty it would be the prison system doing that for them.

Sadly this endeavor will end up in the SCoC and we all know how it'll turn out. Because, in Canada the fact is that protecting the public from proflific criminals has been replaced with criminals rights.

The GPS bracelet will be put on the individual's ankle, and it will track them 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It will only be removed once the individual can convince the Crown, and the community, that they've become a "good, upstanding" citizen

as long as we deem necessary

"A municipality does not have the power to do that, and they are well outside of the realm of what is within their jurisdiction on this one."

Before taking such drastic measures, Farrell said it's important to have supports in place for repeat offenders for conditions that may lead them to crime, such mental illness, substance use, homelessness and poverty.

"What kind of supports are put in place or available to this individual in the community so that they can be set up for success, rather than recycled through the system over and over and over again?" she said. "There might be underlying causes which is influencing this person to reoffend."

That's the problem there. There is no sentence, and is instead based off a vague platitude that's entirely subjective.

People have ankle bracelets all the time, but they have a set about of time where they have to wear them, not "as long as we deem necessary". It would probably run afoul of section 12 of the Charter if brought before the courts.

I don’t have a problem with this sort of option being one tool available as a last resort for the most extreme offenders but it smells like the same kind of flawed thinking behind American-style 3 strikes laws and other harsh mandatory sentencing laws, which were at first pledged to be only for the worst of the worst but then quickly became the norm. It seems they’re being a little coy with who exactly is going to get this treatment. Rules seem a little vague which means it’s ripe for abuse and unfair arbitrary application.

As others have pointed out, an open-ended sentence isn’t going to fly either

Also these points seem valid:

I would assume that these "prolific offenders" will either be on probation and still committing crimes like the article said or the ankle bracelet will be part of their sentence.

Either way if it slows down the criminal activities I'm in favour of it. But you're right it'll likely be tossed out as either an infringement of their rights or will if they've been found guilty or put on probation be considered cruel and unusual punishment.